How Suffering Drives Politics

National Journal
Sam Baker
June 18, 2014, 4 p.m.

Someone is al­ways in pain, and there’s al­ways someone else who thinks they’re fak­ing it. That ten­sion, ac­cord­ing to Keith Wail­oo, tells us a lot about the past half-cen­tury of do­mest­ic polit­ics. Wail­oo’s new book, Pain: A Polit­ic­al His­tory (Johns Hop­kins Uni­versity Press, 2014), uses suf­fer­ing — wheth­er it’s phys­ic­al pain or some oth­er form of an­guish — as a vehicle for un­der­stand­ing dec­ades of so­ci­et­al change.

(Keith Negley)As the coun­try grappled with the linger­ing wounds of GIs who had re­turned from World War II, Pres­id­ent Eis­en­hower was un­der pres­sure to cre­ate a dis­ab­il­ity be­ne­fit with­in what was then the Vet­er­ans Ad­min­is­tra­tion sys­tem. But he met steep res­ist­ance from doc­tors — the people you’d think would be most in­ves­ted in caring for the wounded. The Amer­ic­an Med­ic­al As­so­ci­ation ac­cused Eis­en­hower of “plant­ing the seeds of so­cial­ism” — a charge that has been leveled at every politi­cian who has sub­sequently at­temp­ted to ex­pand health be­ne­fits, from Medi­care to Obama­care. Many of the AMA’s mem­bers also ar­gued that dis­ab­il­ity wasn’t a real thing, that it would simply be a mag­net for lazy and disin­genu­ous vet­er­ans in search of a handout. This po­s­i­tion seems ab­surd now, but in the days when the AMA was fight­ing VA be­ne­fits, med­ic­al treat­ment of pain was poorly un­der­stood. Doc­tors of­ten truly be­lieved that their pa­tients simply needed to toughen up, and lo­botom­ies were a shock­ingly well-ac­cep­ted tool for pain re­lief.

Along with the cul­tur­al re­volu­tion of the mid-1960s and the rise of in­di­vidu­al­ism, a new and rad­ic­al the­ory of medi­cine emerged: Doc­tors came to see pain as unique to each per­son, and they em­braced treat­ments that were more tailored to each pa­tient. These cul­tur­al shifts con­sti­tute the most fas­cin­at­ing part of Wail­oo’s book. The chan­ging un­der­stand­ing of pain led the phar­ma­ceut­ic­al in­dustry to flood the mar­ket with new products (even as crit­ics ques­tioned wheth­er com­pan­ies were in­vent­ing ail­ments just to cure them); it also laid the ground­work for polit­ic­al change. Wail­oo ar­gues that the polit­ics of so­cial-wel­fare pro­grams gen­er­ally track slightly be­hind cul­tur­al at­ti­tudes to­ward people in pain. In oth­er words, the broad­er cul­tur­al lib­er­al­iz­a­tion sur­round­ing pain helped to make pro­grams like Medi­caid and Medi­care pos­sible.

As the heady days of the ‘60s and ‘70s came to an end, so did that era’s view of pain. Pres­id­ent Re­agan presided over a massive purge of wel­fare, dis­ab­il­ity, and Medi­caid rolls, cast­ing the pro­grams as mag­nets for fraud and “learned help­less­ness,” as well as a bur­den to tax­pay­ers.

Re­agan also helped ease reg­u­la­tions on the phar­ma­ceut­ic­al in­dustry — a move that fit with his gen­er­al skep­ti­cism of reg­u­la­tion and that over­lapped, even­tu­ally, with AIDS act­iv­ists’ push for faster ap­prov­al of new drugs. But the pen­du­lum later swung back to­ward reg­u­la­tion, amid wide­spread ab­use of drugs like Oxy­Con­tin and ser­i­ous safety prob­lems that led the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion to pull block­buster products like Vi­oxx, a pain med­ic­a­tion, off the mar­ket.

The polit­ic­al his­tory of pain is largely a ques­tion of pri­or­it­ies. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, the fo­cus was on the phys­ic­al pain of sick people — first vet­er­ans, then the dis­abled, seni­ors, and the poor. Un­der Re­agan, the fo­cus shif­ted to the “pain” of tax­pay­ers who fun­ded wel­fare fraud, even as an­ti­abor­tion con­ser­vat­ives sim­ul­tan­eously came up with a new front in the pain wars — fetal pain. In short, Wail­oo ar­gues, pain is an ef­fect­ive polit­ic­al is­sue. It just de­pends on whose pain you’re talk­ing about.

What We're Following See More »
THE QUESTION
How Many VIPs Were the Secret Service Protecting in Philly Last Night?
28 minutes ago
THE ANSWER

Seven, according to an official Secret Service tweet.

Source:
‘MOGUL,’ ‘DAREDEVIL’
Candidates’ Code Names Revealed
58 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The Clintons will retain their Secret Service "code names from the last time they lived in the White House. Hillary Clinton is EVERGREEN and Bill ClintonEAGLE. Donald Trump is MOGUL, according to reports, and Melania Trump MUSE. The vice presidents get code names, too: Mike Pence is HOOSIER—a little on the nose—and his wife HUMMINGBIRD. Tim Kaine is DAREDEVIL, somewhat ambitiously. His wife's? To be determined."

Source:
MOST AGENCIES HAD ALREADY ALLOWED
GSA: Feds’ Uber Rides Are Now OK
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The Obama administration issued guidance on Wednesday clarifying federal agencies should reimburse employees who use ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft for any travel on official business, effective immediately. The General Services Administration issued a bulletin on the Federal Travel Regulation, cementing a policy many—but not all—agencies had already installed."

Source:
SHIFT FROM ROMNEY’S NUMBERS
Catholics, Highly Educated Moving Toward Dems
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

Catholics who attend mass at least weekly have increased their support of the Democratic nominee by 22 points, relative to 2012, when devout Catholics backed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows that those voters with advanced degrees prefer Hillary Clinton, 51%-34%. Which, we suppose, makes the ideal Clinton voter a Catholic with a PhD in divinity.

‘CROSSED THE RED LINE’
North Korea: U.S. Has Effectively Declared War
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"North Korea's top diplomat for U.S. affairs told The Associated Press on Thursday that Washington ... effectively declared war by putting leader Kim Jong Un on its list of sanctioned individuals, and said a vicious showdown could erupt if the U.S. and South Korea hold annual war games as planned next month." Han Song Ryol said: "The United States has crossed the red line in our showdown. We regard this thrice-cursed crime as a declaration of war."

Source:
×